How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?

[danserr]

There is not a single book of the bible that was written as late as 100 years after Jesus’ death, not even according to the latest skeptic estimates. That being said, even late sources may be reliable historical sources. And there is better evidence for Jesus than anything or anyone else in the ancient world.

Why consider the Bible reliable?

Critics like to claim the gospels are unreliable, often because they are (supposedly) written 40-60 years after the events they tell about, others (like Bart Ehrman) claim the text is in doubt. Or they claims the source is not perfect and so can’t be trusted at all.

1. No historical source is perfect, not even from the 20th century. If we demanded perfect historical sources before we know anything, then we could never know any historical fact, even from the 20th century.
2. 40-60 years is really not so late as far as such sources go. Tacitus wrote about events 100 years afterward, but historians still accept him as a reliable source. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death, but historians still consider him a reliable source. Additionally, remember, this was an oral culture used to training in memory and preservation of sacred tradition over time (especially the Jews).
3. There are reasons to think the gospels were written earlier than often thought. The order of writing is universally agreed to be Mark and Matthew, then Luke, then Acts, so if Acts was written before 63 AD, this would prove the others were written before that. John AT Robinson lists some reasons to think Acts was written before 63 AD.
   a). Peter, James, and Paul were executed in 63 AD, but Acts doesn’t mention it. This is an odd omission, so Acts was probably written before they were executed.
   b). The Author of Acts does not refer to Paul’s letters. This suggests it was written before they became widely circulated.
   c). The portrayal of Romans in Acts and Luke’s gospel is positive. This makes sense if it was written before Nero’s persecutions in 63 AD, but not if it was written later.
   -Another note, Acts sometimes switches to the first person, which suggests the author himself was traveling with Paul to learn about this stuff, that makes him a pretty reliable source.
4. Even 40-60 years in not enough time for legends to arise. Prof. A.N. Sherwin-White points out that even 2 generations is not enough time for the growth of legend to wipe out the hard core of historic fact. And the authors were using sources that were from even earlier.
5. Jesus’ radical concept of himself as the unique divine Son of God is historically probable. Take the parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard. The owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of the vineyard to collect its fruit. The tenants ignore his other messengers so he says “I will send my only son, surely they will respect him.” The point is that Jesus is the son and saw himself as God’s unique son, not just another prophet. This parable is found in the so called “Q,” and so recognized as legit even by radical skeptics.
6. There is good evidence for the Resurrection. Three facts may be established whether one considers the Bible a reliable source or not.
   A). Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later. Habermas found that 75% of scholars admit this.
   B). Jesus’ followers experienced visions of him. Even the skeptic Ludemann admits these happened. He tries to explain them as hallucinations (which is problematic), but he admits they happened.
   C). The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, despite having every reason not to.
   – The most probable explanation of these facts is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb.

Suggested reading and a links:
Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus: Man or Myth, (2005).
William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, Reasaonable Faith chap 8, reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207
NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Surprised by Hope chap 3 and 4.

 

[E_7]

How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

The Bible says that Jesus was in his mother’s lap after he died when they brought him down from the cross. She was crying. Obviously, she was close enough to tell that He was her son.

 

[tonyrey]

Less than 400 years after the death of Jesus St Augustine remarked that the success of the Church would be an even greater miracle if the Resurrection had not occurred. Time is one of the best tests of truth - and 2000 years is a very long time!

 

[The_Reginator]

Because death did not hold HIM. HE rose from death, walked with the apostles for 40 days, eating with them, teaching them. HE has returned numerous times over the centuries, and many of us know HIM personally, have a relationship with HIM, and therefore know that HE was crucified, but never died; was buried but on the 3rd rose again from the dead; and that HE will return to judge heaven and hell.

Less than 400 years after the death of Jesus St Augustine remarked that the success of the Church would be an even greater miracle if the Resurrection had not occurred. Time is one of the best tests of truth - and 2000 years is a very long time!

A thumbs up to both of these.

How do we know it was indeed Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity?
Because we are dealing with spiritual matters here. God did not come to earth to write and accurate account of events, He came (among other things!) to establish His Church. He has entrusted His Bride, the Church, with infallible knowledge. He would certainly correct any mistakes. (That is how the Church arrived at the canon of scripture – by separating the Truth from that which could not be trusted.)

That which the Church teaches must always be accepted as God’s Truth. That is it in a nutshell.
From the outside a person has the problem of having a mistaken frame of reference.
cho pilo, you may not agree but, hey, have I ever lied to you?

 

[tonyrey]

There is not a single book of the bible that was written as late as 100 years after Jesus’ death, not even according to the latest skeptic estimates. That being said, even late sources may be reliable historical sources. And there is better evidence for Jesus than anything or anyone else in the ancient world.

Why consider the Bible reliable?

Critics like to claim the gospels are unreliable, often because they are (supposedly) written 40-60 years after the events they tell about, others (like Bart Ehrman) claim the text is in doubt. Or they claims the source is not perfect and so can’t be trusted at all.

1. No historical source is perfect, not even from the 20th century. If we demanded perfect historical sources before we know anything, then we could never know any historical fact, even from the 20th century.
2. 40-60 years is really not so late as far as such sources go. Tacitus wrote about events 100 years afterward, but historians still accept him as a reliable source. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death, but historians still consider him a reliable source. Additionally, remember, this was an oral culture used to training in memory and preservation of sacred tradition over time (especially the Jews).
3. There are reasons to think the gospels were written earlier than often thought. The order of writing is universally agreed to be Mark and Matthew, then Luke, then Acts, so if Acts was written before 63 AD, this would prove the others were written before that. John AT Robinson lists some reasons to think Acts was written before 63 AD.
   a). Peter, James, and Paul were executed in 63 AD, but Acts doesn’t mention it. This is an odd omission, so Acts was probably written before they were executed.
   b). The Author of Acts does not refer to Paul’s letters. This suggests it was written before they became widely circulated.
   c). The portrayal of Romans in Acts and Luke’s gospel is positive. This makes sense if it was written before Nero’s persecutions in 63 AD, but not if it was written later.
   -Another note, Acts sometimes switches to the first person, which suggests the author himself was traveling with Paul to learn about this stuff, that makes him a pretty reliable source.
4. Even 40-60 years in not enough time for legends to arise. Prof. A.N. Sherwin-White points out that even 2 generations is not enough time for the growth of legend to wipe out the hard core of historic fact. And the authors were using sources that were from even earlier.
5. Jesus’ radical concept of himself as the unique divine Son of God is historically probable. Take the parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard. The owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of the vineyard to collect its fruit. The tenants ignore his other messengers so he says “I will send my only son, surely they will respect him.” The point is that Jesus is the son and saw himself as God’s unique son, not just another prophet. This parable is found in the so called “Q,” and so recognized as legit even by radical skeptics.
6. There is good evidence for the Resurrection. Three facts may be established whether one considers the Bible a reliable source or not.
   A). Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later. Habermas found that 75% of scholars admit this.
   B). Jesus’ followers experienced visions of him. Even the skeptic Ludemann admits these happened. He tries to explain them as hallucinations (which is problematic), but he admits they happened.
   C). The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, despite having every reason not to.
   – The most probable explanation of these facts is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb.

Suggested reading and a links:
Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus: Man or Myth, (2005).
William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, Reasonable Faith chap 8, reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207
NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Surprised by Hope chap 3 and 4.

A formidable array of facts!

 

[babylonsfalling]

I’m going to rephrase my original questions. (It makes more sense to me that way.)

How do we know that the gospel accounts are eye-witness testimony at all, as opposed to imaginative accounts that were written years later in order to make theological points?

I don’t think that we can know that.

Do we have any way of knowing who Jesus was, or of referring to him at all, independent of the Gospel accounts?

It seems to me that we can only say something like…

For all X, if X satisfies descriptions A, B and C, then X is Jesus.

(Where A, B and C are descriptions of Jesus and his activities from the New Testament.)

In other words, Jesus is whoever corresponds to the descriptions of the person in the Bible stories. (Assuming that anyone does.)

If the stories aren’t accurate, then all we are left with is an uninterpreted variable, and there doesn’t really seem to be any reason left why we should continue to call that unknown individual ‘Jesus’. He certainly wouldn’t be the Jesus of the Bible.

We seem to be fixing the reference of the name ‘Jesus’, at least in part, as referring to whoever it was that died on the cross. (Assuming that anyone did die on the cross in the manner and circumstances described.)

In other words, the issue that I’m trying to raise here is figuring out what the role of the myth is in fixing the reference of the name ‘Jesus’ to a particular individual who may or may not have existed in history.

If you’re trying to find ways not to believe in God, you’ll always be able to do so. In the end it will always take a certain amount of faith.

 

[Lui]

How do we know that the gospel accounts are eye-witness testimony at all, as opposed to imaginative accounts that were written years later in order to make theological points?

I don’t think that we can know that.

It’s a matter of belief not knowledge. Since no one can really know for sure who wrote the Gospels. you can only believe it or not.

 

[tonyrey]

If you’re trying to find ways not to believe in God, you’ll always be able to do so. In the end it will always take a certain amount of faith.

It also takes a lot of faith to believe everything is valueless, meaningless and purposeless because it destroys everything you do believe!

 

[tonyrey]

It’s a matter of belief not knowledge. Since no one can really know for sure who wrote the Gospels. you can only believe it or not.

In which case you have no reason to disbelieve it!

 

[Lui]

In which case you have no reason to disbelieve it!

I have neither stated I believe it nor disbelieve it. I don’t understand your conclusion though. There are various reasons to believe it and various reasons not to believe it which is why 2 billion people believe it(or at least are Christian) and 4 billion don’t.

 

[tonyrey]

I have neither stated I believe it nor disbelieve it. I don’t understand your conclusion though. There are various reasons to believe it and various reasons not to believe it which is why 2 billion people believe it(or at least are Christian) and 4 billion don’t.

The atheist Sartre pointed out that in life we cannot sit on the fence and remain neutral. Jesus said “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters…”

 

[Lui]

The atheist Sartre pointed out that in life we cannot sit on the fence and remain neutral. Jesus said “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters…”

Is there a reason you’re trying to start an argument? How do you know what I personally believe or not? I didn’t even mention it but was merely answering the OP’s question.

 

[tonyrey]

Is there a reason you’re trying to start an argument? How do you know what I personally believe or not? I didn’t even mention it but was merely answering the OP’s question.

This is intended to be a discussion not an argument! You stated:

Since no one can really know for sure who wrote the Gospels. you can only believe it or not.

If you don’t believe it you need to give a reason why…

 

[Lui]

If you don’t believe it you need to give a reason why…

Where did I state that I don’t believe it? I just stated that it is based on faith and not on knowledge. If it were based on knowledge, all of humanity would accept the Gospels as a fact and as the truth but the majority doesn’t. Most people don’t believe Jesus is God.

 

[tonyrey]

Where did I state that I don’t believe it? I just stated that it is based on faith and not on knowledge. If it were based on knowledge, all of humanity would accept the Gospels as a fact and as the truth but the majority doesn’t. Most people don’t believe Jesus is God.

1. Either you believe it or you don’t.
2. If you cannot give any reason to believe it or not to believe it you are not entitled to decide whether it is true or not - **if **you are reasonable.

 

[Lui]

1. Either you believe it or you don’t.
2. If you cannot give any reason to believe it or not to believe it you are not entitled to decide whether it is true or not - **if **you are reasonable.

1, That’s what I said. In general people either believe it or they don’t. It’s different with the existence of Julius Caesar. People don’t believe he existed, they KNOW he existed.

1. No one is entitled to decide whether it’s true or not unless they can provide an undeniable PROOF that a) the Gospels were actually written by eye-witnesses and b) that they were telling the truth. Since there is no evidence whatsoever that the Gospels were personally written by eye-witnesses nor if they were telling the truth it’s all based on faith. As a consequence ALL people who read the Gospels can either decide to believe the Gospels hold the truth or they can decide to believe they are fiction. That is just what humanity does. Christians believe in the truth of the Gospels and everyone else doesn’t.

 

[tonyrey]

1, That’s what I said. In general people either believe it or they don’t. It’s different with the existence of Julius Caesar. People don’t believe he existed, they KNOW he existed.

1. No one is entitled to decide whether it’s true or not unless they can provide an undeniable PROOF that a) the Gospels were actually written by eye-witnesses and b) that they were telling the truth. Since there is no evidence whatsoever that the Gospels were personally written by eye-witnesses nor if they were telling the truth. As a consequence ALL people who read the Gospels can either decide if they believe the Gospels are the truth or they can decide if they believe they are fiction. That is just what humanity does. Christians believe in the truth of the Gospels and everyone else doesn’t.

People also believe Caesar existed because they have faith in human testimony…

 

[puzzleannie]

How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

so if it was not Jesus who was crucified, who was it who rose from the dead? did you even read the gospels before asking? he was under constant observation by dozens of people from the time of his arrest until his removal from the cross and burial.

 

[Lui]

People also believe Caesar existed because they have faith in human testimony…

Well, the Roman Empire was a well organized society that documented everything in detail. There are eye-witness accounts from other well documented historical figures, Emperors, historians, philosophers, artists, who witnessed his existence. We have personal writings from Caesar. We even know what he looked like, the exact date of his birth, death and single events of his life by exact date.
To deny Caesar’s existence would be ignorance and no serious historian does that. You will have difficulty though finding serious historians who will claim that the stories of the Gospels, including the resurrection and the miracles, are undeniable historical facts…

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Well, the Roman Empire was a well organized society that documented everything in detail. There are eye-witness accounts from other well documented historical figures, Emperors, historians, philosophers, artists, who witnessed his existence. We have personal writings from Caesar. We even know what he looked like, the exact date of his birth, death and single events of his life by exact date.
To deny Caesar’s existence would be ignorance and no serious historian does that. You will have difficulty though finding serious historians who will claim that the stories of the Gospels, including the resurrection and the miracles, are undeniable historical facts…

Lui, you don’t know what you are talking about. Most Western historians agree that there was such a person as Jesus, and he is mentioned in Roman documents of the period, least of all by the Jewish historian Josephus.
All of this has been discussed to a fault in the past on other sections of this forum.This argument/discussion is beating a dead horse.
Haven’t you anything better to do than futilly argue on the internet?